Laserfiche WebLink
Excerpts continued <br /> Page 3 <br /> wash will use only 55% of the water now utilized in his existing facility and the existing facility <br /> uses 67 gallons of water per wash; the new facility will use only 36.5 gallons of water per wash. <br /> Mr. Tietz stated that Mr. Billingsley can now wash 85% more vehicles using the same amount of <br /> water; therefore, there will be no change in the capacity of the sanitary sewer. Mr. Tietz stated <br /> that Mr. Billingsley has submitted to the city the usage per wash from the manufacturer. Mr. <br /> Tietz stated that there will be approximately 25 cars per hour using the car wash and that is <br /> during the peak hours. Mr. Tietz read a couple of paragraphs from the "Handbook for the Policy <br /> on Permits and Access Driveways to State Highways". Mr. Tietz stated that Mr. Billingsley is <br /> concerned for public safety and feels that the Rainstorm car wash will be a major traffic hazard <br /> and that there is inadequate stacking if the plan remains unchanged and feels that one of the car <br /> washes is going to fail. Mr. Tietz stated that the water from Rainstorm will head toward the <br /> intersection and parking lot. Mr. Tietz stated that the sanitary sewer will not be able to handle <br /> both car washes. Mr. Tietz stated that he would like the petition tabled or denied or make the <br /> petitioner be required to submit an amended plan. <br /> Mrs. Sadorus stated that Mr. Tietz's argument that the sanitary sewer is at 80 percent is not a <br /> good argument because he does not know what the capacity is. <br /> Mr. Terry Smith stated that the purpose of the Commission is to look at the plan and determine <br /> whether or not it should be forward to the City Council and that there are systems in place that <br /> all items have to be addressed before it goes to the City Council meeting. Mr. Smith stated that <br /> Mr. Tietz's comments he brought up are based on his opinion. <br /> Mr. Greg Crowe was sworn in by Mrs. Althoff. <br /> Mr. Crowe stated that the petition could be forwarded to the City Council and that the Council <br /> could hear the case and hold the ordinance until the items are met. <br /> Mr. Tietz stated that the council meeting is 11 days away and there are too many items to address <br /> and would like the problems addressed before going to City Council. <br /> Mr. Cassidy stated that the present design meets all applicable city codes. <br /> Mr. John asked staff how they interpreted the three standards which must be met in order to grant <br /> a conditional use permit. <br /> Mr. Crowe stated that the standards are not cut and dry and one factor is that there is not a <br /> similar car wash in the vicinity, and that the current car wash at Billingsley is not the same type <br /> of car wash as the one proposed from Rainstorm. Mr. Crowe stated that the "value" standard is <br /> intended for the value of the land and not the value of the business or how competition may <br /> affect the business. Mr. Crowe stated that there can be negative effects from aesthetics or from <br /> the type of usage that is going on with conditional use permits and there certainly is a standard <br /> that has to be met. <br /> Mr. Edwards stated that he did not think about the side traffic next to the site and asked whether <br /> Mr. Billingsley has been in contact with city staff regarding his proposal. <br /> Mr. Crowe stated that Mr. Billingsley has been in contact with city staff and that the competition <br /> factor is not the strongest issue. <br />